emo/busybox
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
ee9cf48620
busybox/procps/Makefile.in

31 lines
811 B
Makefile
Raw Normal View History

Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
# Makefile for busybox
#
use brief license line
2005-09-24 11:31:57 +05:30
# Copyright (C) 1999-2005 by Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
#
use brief license line
2005-09-24 11:31:57 +05:30
# Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this tarball.
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
PROCPS_AR:=procps.a
ifndef $(PROCPS_DIR)
egor duda writes: Hi! I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6. That is, one runs command like 'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options' and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists. I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing is needed at all to whether it coded properly. 'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that. One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first. egor
2004-10-08 13:16:08 +05:30
PROCPS_DIR:=$(top_builddir)/procps/
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
endif
egor duda writes: Hi! I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6. That is, one runs command like 'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options' and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists. I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing is needed at all to whether it coded properly. 'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that. One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first. egor
2004-10-08 13:16:08 +05:30
srcdir=$(top_srcdir)/procps
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
Bugfix from Claudio Fleiner <claudio@fleiner.com>
2002-10-01 02:23:38 +05:30
PROCPS-y:=
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_FREE) += free.o
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_KILL) += kill.o
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_PIDOF) += pidof.o
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_PS) += ps.o
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_RENICE) += renice.o
sysctl was seriously broken. And since in some cases 'CONFIG_SYSCTL' could be included into application space via the kernel config option of the same name, nasty compilation problems could result.
2005-09-13 03:12:48 +05:30
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_BB_SYSCTL) += sysctl.o
Add a new top applet -Erik
2002-09-18 03:44:58 +05:30
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_TOP) += top.o
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
PROCPS-$(CONFIG_UPTIME) += uptime.o
libraries-y+=$(PROCPS_DIR)$(PROCPS_AR)
$(PROCPS_DIR)$(PROCPS_AR): $(patsubst %,$(PROCPS_DIR)%, $(PROCPS-y))
use toplevel ARFLAGS and update default ARFLAGS to be quiet
2005-07-27 06:39:24 +05:30
$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $@ $(patsubst %,$(PROCPS_DIR)%, $(PROCPS-y))
Completely rework the config system so that it no longer annoys me to work on the busybox development tree. This eliminates the use of recursive make, and once again allows us to run 'make' in a subdirectory with the expected result. And things are now much faster too. Greatly improved IMHO... -Erik
2002-04-12 17:35:57 +05:30
egor duda writes: Hi! I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6. That is, one runs command like 'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options' and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists. I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing is needed at all to whether it coded properly. 'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that. One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first. egor
2004-10-08 13:16:08 +05:30
$(PROCPS_DIR)%.o: $(srcdir)/%.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) -c -o $@ $<
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink